Review of Conflict Realism
Conflict Realism: Understanding the Causal Logic of Modern War and Warfare
By Amos C Fox, Ph.D. Howgate Publishing Limited, 2024. ISBN 978-1912440535. Bibliography. Pp. 1, 230. $29.95.
In Conflict Realism, Dr. Amos Fox presents a thought-provoking and incisive analysis of contemporary military theory, challenging established paradigms and advocating for a return to a grounded, realistic approach to understanding warfare. Through eight meticulously argued chapters, Fox dissects prevailing military doctrines and offers a fresh perspective that is both critical and pragmatic. His analysis strips away the fantasies of futuristic warfare often touted by techno-optimists and reaffirms that war remains an inherently human endeavor—fraught with uncertainty, risk, and consequences.
At a time when the conversation around military strategy is increasingly dominated by technological innovation and the prospect of an almost bloodless, surgical form of warfare, Fox’s Conflict Realism offers a vital corrective. If you’re looking for a book that will tell you some emerging technology is poised to replace sound strategy, or that conventional wars and battles are becoming obsolete, Conflict Realism is not for you. Instead, Fox urges readers to return to the fundamentals of military theory and to recognize the enduring nature of war and warfare—where state and non-state actors alike operate in a coherent, self-interested, and value-seeking manner. As he aptly puts it, “Thinking about the future of war must see beyond situational fads, fake novelty, and military myths.” In this review, we will explore the depth and nuance of Dr. Fox’s arguments, discuss the themes that run through each chapter, and reflect on why this book is an essential read for military professionals and scholars alike.
In Chapter 1, he identifies four schools of thought that dominate modern military discussions: the institutionalist, the futurist, the traditionalist, and the realist. By categorizing these perspectives, Fox gives readers a useful framework for understanding how different schools shape military strategy and decision-making. The institutionalists often rely on rigid structures and established norms, while futurists focus on emerging technologies and the idea that future warfare will look radically different from past conflicts. Traditionalists, on the other hand, are more grounded in history but sometimes fail to account for present and future developments. Fox is quick to advocate for the superiority of the practical realist approach. Realism, he argues, recognizes the messy, unpredictable nature of conflict and the need for military strategies that are flexible and adaptable. Rather than being swayed by the allure of technology or institutional dogma, the realist emphasizes practical solutions and hard truths—something often missing in the more idealistic or overly optimistic perspectives of other schools.
Fox is quick to advocate for the superiority of the practical realist approach. Realism, he argues, recognizes the messy, unpredictable nature of conflict and the need for military strategies that are flexible and adaptable.
The Hard Power versus Soft Power Debate
In Chapter 2, Fox pivots to a critique of the current over-reliance on soft power in military thinking. He argues that while diplomacy, economics, and influence are critical components of a state’s power, they often falter when faced with the realities of violent conflict. Fox is not dismissive of soft power’s potential, but he cautions that it should not be mistaken for a substitute for hard military power. Conflict realism, he explains, is a theory that recognizes that war, at its core, is violent and requires brute force. Fox challenges the assumption that conflicts can be won through minimal force or by avoiding combat altogether, pointing to recent historical examples where soft power strategies failed to achieve decisive outcomes. He underscores the dangers of underestimating adversaries who rely on force and violence as their primary means of advancing their objectives. For Fox, successful military strategy must integrate hard power in a way that acknowledges the grim reality of warfare.
Paradoxes of Modern Military Thought
Perhaps the most intellectually stimulating section of the book comes in Chapter 3, where Fox outlines five paradoxes that plague modern Western militaries. These paradoxes, which reflect deep-seated tensions between theory and practice, are essential to understanding why many military strategies fail. Fox questions long-standing assumptions about the primacy of command and control, the utility of small and dispersed forces, and the possibility of achieving battlefield transparency. He also critiques the notion that militaries can dictate the terms of how conflicts are fought, as well as the belief in the effectiveness of defeat mechanisms that aim to demoralize and destabilize the enemy. Fox’s analysis of these paradoxes is sharp and unflinching. He calls out the disconnect between the neat, academic models of warfare and the chaotic, unpredictable nature of real-world conflicts. In doing so, Fox pushes readers to question the very foundations of contemporary military theory and to reconsider how Western militaries should approach future conflicts.
The Overlooked Realities of Warfare
In Chapters 4 through 7, Fox turns his attention to several overlooked or misunderstood aspects of warfare. He begins by examining the dual nature of wars: they are not only fought between opposing forces but are also deeply influenced by the internal dynamics of the actors involved. Fox explains how the friction within a military organization, the political pressures on leadership, and the ever-present reality of resource constraints can shape the course of a conflict. One of Fox’s most striking contributions is his discussion of urban warfare, siege tactics, and attrition warfare—forms of conflict often dismissed in modern military thought. He stresses that these methods remain relevant and can be decisive in prolonged engagements. In particular, Fox challenges the over-emphasis on maneuver warfare, pointing out that while it is valuable, it is not the silver bullet many strategists believe it to be. His analysis of attrition warfare is especially relevant in light of recent conflicts, such as the ongoing war in Ukraine. Fox notes that attrition remains a powerful force in warfare, as it wears down the enemy over time, a lesson that modern militaries have sometimes been slow to learn.
Precision Strikes and the Illusion of Progress
The book concludes with a critical assessment of precision strike strategies. In Chapter 8, Fox argues that while precision strikes offer a degree of efficiency, they can also create a dangerous illusion of progress. Militaries, lulled by the ability to strike targets with pinpoint accuracy, may become overconfident, believing they are achieving more than they actually are. Fox emphasizes that precision strikes are not a substitute for the broader, more complex work of military strategy and cannot by themselves deliver victory.
Conflict Realism is an essential read for anyone serious about military strategy. Dr. Amos Fox’s direct writing style, combined with his deep understanding of military history and theory, makes the book a refreshing counterpoint to the trend of futurism in military thought. He challenges readers to confront uncomfortable truths about warfare, urging them to embrace a more realistic, practical approach. In an era when technology often overshadows the gritty realities of combat, Fox’s work is a much-needed reminder that war remains as brutal, unpredictable, and fundamentally human as ever. You can confidently place Conflict Realism next to your Liddle Hart, Robert Leonhard, and DuPuy collection, but far away from the futurist section of your library.
